urdb_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns products with integrity scores (0-100), which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens with empty results. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and output, while the second provides clear usage guidance. There's zero waste or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and primary use case well, but lacks details about the return format (beyond mentioning integrity scores), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The description is sufficient for basic use but leaves important operational questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions searching 'by name or keyword' which aligns with the 'q' parameter, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search URDB for consumer products') and resources ('consumer products'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it's for searching by name/keyword rather than getting specific products or lists. It explicitly mentions the integrity score output, which differentiates it from basic search tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first when the user asks about a product or wants product recommendations'), creating a clear priority over other tools. While it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, the 'first' directive strongly implies this is the primary search tool in the context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.